Amber Sinha is a contributing editor at Tech Policy Press.

The regulatory landscape for hate speech in India this century has been a combination of repressive colonial-era penal laws with contemporary digital regulations. However, recent regulatory development at the state level—most notably in Telangana and Karnataka—suggests a shift toward a localized, executive-led patchwork of censorship that risks further bypassing the nation’s limited constitutional safeguards.

The regulation of hate speech in India is structurally rooted in the “Public Order” exception under Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution. Historically, the regulation of speech in India was anchored in the Indian Penal Code (IPC), primarily through a trio of provisions: Sections 153A (promoting enmity between groups), 295A (outraging religious feelings), and 505 (statements conducing to public mischief).

With the transition to the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) in 2024, these provisions were re-codified as Sections 196, 299, and 353, respectively, but their underlying logic remains the same: speech is viewed through the lens of its potential to provoke physical unrest. These provisions, designed for an era of physical pamphlets and public orations, have been awkwardly adopted for the digital age. While the Information Technology Act, 2000 initially introduced the restrictive Section 66A (struck down in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India for, among other things, its vagueness), the state's power now resides in Section 69A, which allows for the "blocking" of content in the interest of national security and public order.

Under the Information Technology Rules 2021, the Indian government further tightened control by mandating social media intermediaries to take down “unlawful content” within narrow timeframes, effectively turning platforms into delegated agents of state censorship. Against this backdrop of centralized control, individual states have begun to forge their own, even more aggressive, regulatory paths.

State-Led Interventions: Karnataka and Telangana

In recent months, both Karnataka and Telangana have moved beyond merely enforcing federal law to propose or implement state-specific mechanisms for monitoring and preventing hate speech.

The Karnataka Hate Speech and Hate Crimes (Prevention) Bill adopts an expansive and arguably nebulous definition of “hate speech,” encompassing any verbal, symbolic, or digital form of expression intended to cause disharmony, injury, or feelings of enmity. This bill extends protection across a wide range of identities, including religion, race, caste, gender, and sexual orientation. It defines a “hate crime” not only as the speech itself, but also as the circulation, promotion, or incitement of such rhetoric.

The punitive framework is notably severe, signaling a shift from civil discourse management to aggressive criminalization. First-time offenders face one to seven years’imprisonment and substantial fines, while repeat offenders face mandatory minimum sentences of two years, extending up to a decade in prison. These offenses are categorized as cognizable and non-bailable, permitting law enforcement to bypass warrant requirements and making bail the exception rather than a right.

Perhaps the bill’s most controversial element concerns institutional liability. It stipulates that every individual in a position of authority within an organization or institution—whether legally registered or not—is presumed guilty by default if an offense occurs. This effectively shifts the burden of proof, requiring office-bearers to affirmatively demonstrate that the violation occurred without their knowledge or that they exercised extreme diligence to prevent it.

The bill also grants the state broad authority over the digital sphere. Designated state officers are empowered to issue binding takedown orders to service providers and intermediaries, effectively bypassing judicial oversight to remove content from the digital public square. Furthermore, the legislation authorizes Executive Magistrates and senior police officials to take "preventive action" against those they believe are likely to commit an offense within their jurisdiction. This shift from regulating actual harm to policing anticipated events represents a significant expansion of the state’s coercive power, allowing for intervention before any speech has occurred.

Citing a series of constitutional and procedural red flags, Karnataka Governor Thaawar Chand Gehlot has deferred the bill, referring it to the President of India for a final verdict.

Despite this, the Telangana government drafted a bill that effectively replicates the structural flaws of the Karnataka law. It adopts the same broad definitions of hate speech and severe penalties, while also imposing personal liability on organizational leaders and granting the executive sweeping authority to remove online content.

Telangana has also drawn scrutiny for its aggressive use of the Preventive Detention (PD) Act to combat hate speech, most notably in the case of repeat offenders like T. Raja Singh. The state has additionally explored institutionalizing digital monitoring units to track ‘inflammatory’ content in real-time. The use of preventive detention for speech-related offenses is also a departure from democratic norms. When speech is policed through the lens of “preventive security,” the likely consequence is an erosion of political dissent.

Following this, the Odisha State Law Commission also recommended new legislation to address hate speech and hate crimes. These efforts by state governments to develop their own hate speech and misinformation regimes represent a departure from the federal baseline. Although framed as measures to preserve communal harmony, such interventions risk creating a fragmented “splinternet” within India, where the boundaries for lawful speech vary across provincial borders.

Mild judicial pushback

As states move to establish localized regulatory regimes, the Supreme Court has signaled increasing skepticism toward further regulation. In a recent proceeding, a bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta questioned the need for new guidelines or heightened regulation of hate speech.

The bench observed that “hate speech” is increasingly being used as a catch-all phrase in a flurry of Public Interest Litigations (PILs), often without meeting the rigorous legal thresholds established by the Indian Penal Code. Importantly, the court’s order highlights the dangers of vagueness, where attempting to regulate every instance of offensive speech risks infringing upon the fundamental right to expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution.

The experiments in Karnataka and Telangana highlight a broader and potentially dangerous trend: the fragmentation of free speech regulation into a patchwork of localized "fact-check units" and preventive detention measures. While the harms associated with online hate speech are real, the solution lies not in expanding the state's power, but in reinforcing the rule of law.